Re: [PATCH v4 09/18] dt-bindings: usb: Add Qualcomm PMIC TCPM YAML schema

From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
	linux@roeck-us.net, heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, andersson@kernel.org,
	robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
	linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Cc: wcheng@codeaurora.org, caleb.connolly@linaro.org,
	konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, subbaram@quicinc.com,
	jackp@quicinc.com, robertom@qti.qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/18] dt-bindings: usb: Add Qualcomm PMIC TCPM YAML schema
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2023 22:32:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <deee073d-0f84-eb64-3485-fb4a9418c2f5@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c5ac0d15-4651-318e-4dd2-37b2f90b2ba0@linaro.org>

On 19/03/2023 17:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> So this comment from Rob is what I was aiming for
>>
>> "Your other option is instantiate your own device from the virtual
>> driver's initcall based on presence of the 2 nodes above. "
>>
>> rather than two mush the pdphy and typec into one device, which they are
>> not.
> Sure, but you did not instantiate anything based on these two or one
> nodes. You added virtual device node.

Yes true, but I see the distinction you are making.

> 
>> I guess what I'm trying to understand is how you guys would suggest that
>> is actually done.
> You have there already node for the PMIC USB Type-C, so this should be
> part of it. I really do not understand why this is separate device lying
> around in parallel like:
> 
> pmic {
> 	usb {
> 	};
> };
> 
> virtual- pmic-tcpm {
> };
> 
> What hardware piece does such description represent?
> 

None, yes its a "HLOS" convenience, I take your point.